Kansas Licensing Bill --- Not a Guarantee!!!

[James H. Bushart]

There are many activities taking place at several levels to stop the special interest groups presently trying to gain personal advantage at the expense of home inspectors in Kansas.

Some, we can discuss here. Others will be brought to light at the appropriate times.

Suffice it to say that the fat lady not only has not sung yet....but she is preparing to leave the opera.

I was provided a copy of an email exchange between members of a committee that is presently writing an SOP when there has yet to be a law signed by the Governor of Kansas authorizing any such activity. I brought this to their attention in response to the email, and Mr. Barnes sent the following:

Originally Posted by Barnes

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:51 PM
Subject: Note from Jeff Barnes

I want to offer my sincere apologies to the professionals my meeting notices have been sent to. I was warned that leaving the e-mail string visible would allow others to hi-jack the addresses and send out unsolicited e-mails. I wrongly assumed that all of the individuals on the sting were professionals who would follow basic professional decorum and ethical restraint. My error has cause many of you to receive unwanted and unsolicited spam from individuals who will take any opportunity to present their agenda. The sad thing is that the two individuals presenting derogatory information are, as most of you know, knowingly presenting false information. For those who are not aware, the Attorney General declared one sentence unconstitutional. Out of the 3,601 words in the bill 33 were stricken due to the AG's opinion. Only 33, Mr. Bushart would have you believe that the whole bill was sent back. After consultation with inspectors who attended the two board meetings and discussions with the AG's office and the boards counsel, the Board made several other technical and clerical corrections and made 7 substantive changes to add protections for the industry. Again, a far cry from what was presented by Mr. Bushart, and to clarify, nothing was "sent back", the Board ask the legislature for the changes. Lastly, the legislation has zero fiscal impact on the state. Neither the Board or the agency has any state appropriations. No tax payer money is funding the legislation or the agency and Board. The agency and Board are entirely fee funded. Again contrary to what Mr. Bushart has listed in his post.

Again, I apologize for my lack of technical expertise in hiding your e-mail addresses. I would hope that all on the list would exercise a little ethical and professional restraint in the future. These individuals have been continually posting this misinformation unopposed on inspector message boards and I would respectfully request that they keep it that way and off of this e-mail string designed for State of Kansas business.

My apologies
Jeff Barnes

Well....there is no other way of saying it, but Mr. Barnes is misinforming his colleagues.

The Attorney General did not send "33 words" back to the legislature...he sent the law. While there, the legislature amended and added to...not "33 words"....but the law. These amendments and modifications, along with the original wording is now in committee.

All of the activities being performed by this defunct licensing board without a law to define or govern them...means nothing. Everything they publish is for amusement, only.

As far as the expense to the taxpayers....as the Budget Director has stated....without knowing how many inspectors will be paying fees, no one knows what the total cost of administering this law will be.

We do know that, so far...there has been an expense to the taxpayers for the law's development, for the review by the lawyers at the AG office and their finding of its unconstitutionality...and the cost of having it sent back and re-worked. The administrative costs continue to build at the state's expense...ultimately, at the tax payer's expense...while the naive board president continues to claim that it comes at no cost at all.

As the other efforts to thwart the attempts of special interests to exploit the home inspectors of Kansas begin to take effect, I will publish them, as well. A singular note of thanks to Nick Gromicko for his assistance that will also be made public within the next few days.

Keep up the fight.

[Joe Farsetta]

An open letter to Jeff Barnes, et al:

Mr Barnes,

The question remains as to the disposition of the actual law, as signed by the Governor. Which is factual? Is the law in effect, or is it not? The question is simple. If it is not, then I submit that your Board is operating illegally, not merely without a charter.

Again, is the law in effect, or is it not?

I also submit that association bias has reared its ugly head. Those within your Circle have chosen one association test over another. The criteria you wrote into the law states "psychometrically valid" as prima fascia evidence of a test's worthiness.

Whether or not NACHI's exam meets that criteria is a discussion for another day. The plain truth is that the old ASHI exam was NOT phychometrically validated; only the NHIE was. Therefore, the choice of ASHI over NACHI was clearly a biased one.

I recommend that, when and if the law becomes real, that a new Board be appointed.

It is clear that absent of legal clarification as to the status of the original law, the Board may indeed be operating illegally, and therefore need to immediately be disbanded, with members forever barred from future administrative participation at any capacity within the State. Knowingly operating outside the law goes way beyond a lack of decorum; it reeks of corruption.

Fair is fair... and illegal is illegal.

So please tell us if the law, as signed by your Governor, was struck down or does it remain passed, and therefore exempt from future approval from the State Legislature and Governor?

A simple and direct question. A straight answer from YOU (since you claim that James Bushart is lying) is what will be measured.

Will you have the courage of your convictions? I am definitely not Nick Gromicko, and have no dog in this hunt. The truth is a beautiful thing.

By the way.... I know of no legislation that comes with no cost involved at the state level for implementation and administration. You claim that this law costs nothing. I sincerely hope so, in a state on the apparent verge of a financial meltdown...